Pharmacotherapeutic group: Ophthalmologicals, other ocular vascular disorder agents, ATC code: S01LA09
Mechanism of action
Faricimab is a humanised bispecific immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) antibody that acts through inhibition of two distinct pathways by neutralisation of both angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) and vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A).
Ang-2 causes vascular instability by promoting endothelial destabilisation, pericyte loss, and pathological angiogenesis, thus potentiating vascular leakage and inflammation. It also sensitises blood vessels to the activity of VEGF-A resulting in further vascular destabilisation. Ang-2 and VEGF-A synergistically increase vascular permeability and stimulate neovascularisation.
By dual inhibition of Ang-2 and VEGF-A, faricimab reduces vascular permeability and inflammation, inhibits pathological angiogenesis and restores vascular stability.
Pharmacodynamic effects
A suppression from baseline of median ocular free Ang-2 and free VEGF-A concentrations was observed from day 7 onwards in the six Phase III studies described hereafter.
nAMD
nAMD is characterised by pathological choroidal neovascularisation (CNV). Leakage of blood and fluid from CNV may cause retinal thickening with sub and/or intraretinal fluid accumulation (SRF, IRF) and haemorrhages, which can result in vision loss.
In TENAYA and LUCERNE, objective, pre-specified visual and anatomic criteria, as well as treating physician clinical assessment, were used to guide treatment decisions at the disease activity assessment time points (week 20 and week 24).
The mean central subfield thickness (CST) reduction from baseline at the primary endpoint visits (averaged at weeks 40-48) was comparable to those observed with aflibercept with -137 µm and -137 µm in patients treated with Vabysmo dosed up to every 16 weeks (Q16W) as compared to -129 µm and -131 µm with aflibercept, in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively. These mean CST reductions were maintained through year 2.
At Week 48, in both studies there was a comparable effect of Vabysmo and aflibercept on the reduction of intraretinal fluid (IRF), subretinal fluid (SRF), and pigment epithelial detachment (PED). These effects in IRF, SRF, and PED were maintained at year 2. There were also comparable changes in total CNV lesion area and reductions in CNV leakage area from baseline for patients in the Vabysmo and aflibercept treatment arms.
DMO
DMO is a consequence of DR and is characterised by increased vasopermeability and damage to the retinal capillaries, mediated in part due to VEGF and Ang2, which may result in vision loss.
In YOSEMITE and RHINE, anatomic parameters related to macular oedema were part of the disease activity assessments guiding treatment decisions in the Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing arm.
The mean CST reduction from baseline at the primary endpoint visits (averaged at weeks 48-56) were numerically greater than those observed with aflibercept, with -207 µm and -197 µm in patients treated with Vabysmo Q8W and Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing as compared to -170 µm in aflibercept Q8W patients in YOSEMITE; results were 196 µm, 188 µm and 170 µm, respectively in RHINE. Consistent reductions in CST were observed through Year 2.
Greater proportions of patients in both Vabysmo arms achieved absence of IRF and absence of DMO (defined as reaching CST below 325 µm) over time through year 2 as compared to aflibercept in both studies.
RVO
RVO is characterised by an increase in intraluminal pressure due to vascular obstruction, which causes areas of reduced perfusion and ischaemia. The subsequent break down of the blood retinal barrier and a pathological increase of retinal vessel permeability leads to macular oedema and vision loss.
In Phase III studies in patients with branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO; BALATON) and central/hemiretinal vein occlusion (C/HRVO; COMINO), reductions in mean CST were observed from baseline to week 24 with Vabysmo Q4W and were comparable to those seen with aflibercept Q4W. The mean CST reduction from baseline to week 24 was 311.4 µm for Vabysmo Q4W versus 304.4 µm for aflibercept Q4W, in BALATON, and 461.6 µm versus 448.8 µm in COMINO for Vabysmo and aflibercept, respectively. CST reductions were maintained through week 72 when patients moved to a Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimen.
Comparable proportions of patients in both Vabysmo Q4W and afliberceptQ4W arms achieved absence of IRF, absence of SRF, and absence of macular oedema (defined as reaching CST below 325 µm) over time through week 24, in both studies. These results were maintained through week 72 when patients moved to a Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimen.
Clinical efficacy and safety
nAMD
The safety and efficacy of Vabysmo were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked, active comparator-controlled, 2-year studies in patients with nAMD, TENAYA and LUCERNE. A total of 1,329 treatment-naïve patients were enrolled with 1,135 (85%) patients completing the studies through week 112. A total of 1,326 patients received at least one dose (664 with Vabysmo). Patient ages ranged from 50 to 99 years with a mean of 75.9 years.
In both studies, patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two treatment arms:
• Vabysmo 6 mg up to Q16W after four initial monthly doses
• Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W after three initial monthly doses
After the first four monthly doses (weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12) patients randomised to the Vabysmo arm received Q16W, every 12 weeks (Q12W) or Q8W dosing based on an assessment of disease activity at weeks 20 and 24, using objective pre-specified ETDRS-measured BCVA and SD-OCT CST criteria as well as treating physician clinical assessment of the presence/absence of macular haemorrhage. Patients remained on these fixed dosing intervals until week 60 without supplemental therapy.
From week 60 onwards, patients in the Vabysmo arm moved to an adjustable dosing regimen, where their treatment interval could be modified by up to 4 week interval extensions (up to Q16W) or reduced by up to 8 week intervals (up to Q8W) based on an automated objective assessment of pre-specified visual and anatomic disease activity criteria. Patients in the aflibercept arm remained on Q8W dosing throughout the study period. Both studies were 112 weeks in duration.
Results
Both studies demonstrated efficacy in the primary endpoint, defined as the mean change from baseline in BCVA when averaged over the week 40, 44, and 48 visits and measured by the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letter score (Table 2 and Table 3). In both studies, Vabysmo up to Q16W treated patients had a comparable mean change from baseline in BCVA, as the patients treated with aflibercept Q8W at year 1. Vision gains remained comparable between both treatment arms through Week 112. Improvements from baseline BCVA at week 112 are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
The proportion of patients on each of the different treatment intervals at week 112 in TENAYA and LUCERNE respectively was:
• Q16W, 59% and 67%
• Q12W, 15% and 14%
• Q8W, 26% and 19%
Table 2: Efficacy outcomes at the primary endpoint visitsa and at year 2b in TENAYA.
| Efficacy Outcomes | TENAYA |
| Year 1 | Year 2 |
| Vabysmo up to Q16W N = 334 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 337 | Vabysmo up to Q16W N = 334 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 337 |
| Median number of injections received (Q1, Q3) | 6.0 (6,7) | 8.0 (7, 8) | 3.0 (3,5) | 6.0 (6,6) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline (95% CI) | 5.8 (4.6, 7.1) | 5.1 (3.9, 6.4) | 3.7 (2.1, 5.4) | 3.3 (1.7, 4.9) |
| Difference in LS mean (95% CI) | 0.7 (-1.1, 2.5) | - | 0.4 (-1.9, 2.8) | - |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 15 letter gain from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 20.0% (15.6%, 24.4%) | 15.7% (11.9%, 19.6%) | 22.5% (17.8%, 27.2%) | 16.9% (12.7%, 21.1%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | 4.3% (-1.6%, 10.1%) | - | 5.6% (-0.7%,11.9%) | - |
| Proportion of patients avoiding ≥ 15 letter loss from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 95.4% (93.0%, 97.7%) | 94.1% (91.5%, 96.7 %) | 92.1% (89.1%, 95.1%) | 88.6% (85.1%, 92.2%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | 1.3% (-2.2%, 4.8%) | - | 3.4% (-1.2%, 8.1%) | - |
aAverage of weeks 40, 44 and 48; b Average of weeks 104,108,112
* Median number of injections received for Year 1 corresponds to the period of baseline through week 48, and for Year 2 corresponds to the period after Week 60 until End of Study
Q1: 1st quartile
Q3: 3rd quartile
BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
CI: Confidence Interval
LS: Least Square
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Table 3: Efficacy outcomes at the primary endpoint visitsa and at year 2b in LUCERNE
| Efficacy Outcomes | LUCERNE |
| Year 1 | Year 2 |
| Vabysmo up to Q16W N = 331 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 327 | Vabysmo up to Q16W N = 331 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 327 |
| Median number of injections received (Q1, Q3) | 6.0 (6, 7) | 8.0 (7, 8) | 3.0 (3,5) | 6.0 (6,6) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline (95% CI) | 6.6 (5.3, 7.8) | 6.6 (5.3, 7.8) | 5.0 (3.4, 6.6) | 5.2 (3.6, 6.8) |
| Difference in LS mean (95% CI) | 0.0 (-1.7, 1.8) | - | -0.2 (-2.4, 2.1) | - |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 15 letter gain from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 20.2% (15.9%, 24.6%) | 22.2% (17.7%, 26.8%) | 22.4% (17.8%, 27.1% | 21.3% (16.8%, 25.9%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | -2.0% (-8.3%, 4.3%) | - | 1.1% (-5.4%, 7.6%) | - |
| Proportion of patients avoiding ≥ 15 letter loss from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 95.8% (93.6%, 98.0%) | 97.3% (95.5%, 99.1%) | 92.9% (90.1%, 95.8%) | 93.2% (90.2%, 96.2%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | -1.5% (-4.4%, 1.3%) | - | -0.2% (-4.4%, 3.9%) | - |
aAverage of weeks 40, 44 and 48; bAverage of weeks 104, 108, 112
* Median number of injections received for Year 1 corresponds to the period of baseline through week 48, and for Year 2 corresponds to the period after Week 60 until End of Study,
Q1: 1st quartile
Q3: 3rd quartile
BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
CI: Confidence Interval
LS: Least Square
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Figure 1: Mean change in visual acuity from baseline to year 2 (week 112); combined data from TENAYA and LUCERNE studies.

In both TENAYA and LUCERNE, improvements from baseline in BCVA and CST at week 60 were comparable across the two treatment arms and consistent with those seen at week 48.
At week 60, 46% of patients in both TENAYA and LUCERNE were on a Q16W interval. Of these, 69% of patients in both studies maintained Q16W through week 112 without interval reduction.
At week 60, 80% and 78% of patients in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively, were on a ≥ Q12W interval (Q16W or Q12W). Of these, 67% and 75% of patients, respectively, maintained a ≥ Q12W interval through week 112 without an interval reduction below Q12W.
At week 60, 33% of patients in both TENAYA and LUCERNE were on a Q12W interval. Of these, 3.2% and 0% of patients in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively, maintained Q12W through week 112.
At week 60, 20% and 22% of patients in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively, were on a Q8W interval. Of these, 34% and 30% of patients in TENAYA and LUCERNE, respectively, maintained Q8W therapy through week 112.
Efficacy results in all evaluable subgroups (e.g. age, gender, race, baseline visual acuity, lesion type, lesion size) in each study, and in the pooled analysis, were consistent with the results in the overall populations.
In both studies, Vabysmo up to Q16W demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to week 48 in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) composite score that was comparable to aflibercept Q8W. Patients in Vabysmo arms in TENAYA and LUCERNE achieved a ≥ 4 point improvement from baseline in the NEI VFQ -25 composite score at week 48. These results were maintained at week 112.
DMO
The safety and efficacy of Vabysmo were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked, active comparator-controlled 2-year studies (YOSEMITE and RHINE) in patients with DMO. A total of 1,891 patients were enrolled in the two studies with 1622 (85.8%) patients completing the studies through week 100. A total of 1,887 were treated with at least one dose through week 56 (1,262 with Vabysmo). Patient ages ranged from 24 to 91 with a mean of 62.2 years. The overall population included both anti-VEGF naive patients (78%) and patients who had been previously treated with a VEGF inhibitor prior to study participation (22%). In both studies, patients were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to one of the three treatment regimens:
• Vabysmo 6 mg Q8W after the first 6 monthly doses.
• Vabysmo 6 mg up to Q16W adjustable dosing administered in 4, 8, 12 or 16-week intervals after the first 4 monthly doses.
• Aflibercept 2 mg Q8W after the first 5 monthly doses.
In the up to Q16W adjustable dosing arm, the dosing followed a standardised treat-and-extend approach. The interval could be increased in 4-week increments or decreased in 4- or 8-week increments based on CST change as measured on OCT and/or BCVA change as measured by ETDRS letters, using data obtained only at study drug dosing visits.
Results
Both studies demonstrated efficacy in the primary endpoint, defined as the mean change from baseline in BCVA at year 1 (average of the week 48, 52, and 56 visits), measured by the ETDRS Letter Score. In both studies, Vabysmo up to Q16W treated patients had a comparable mean change from baseline in BCVA, as the patients treated with aflibercept Q8W at year 1, and these vision gains were maintained through year 2.
After 4 initial monthly doses, the patients in the Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing arm could have received between the minimum of 6 and the maximum of 21 total injections through week 96. At week 52, 74% and 71% of patients in the Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing arm achieved a Q16W or Q12W dosing interval in YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively (53% and 51% on Q16W, 21% and 20% on Q12W). Of these patients, 75% and 84% maintained ≥ Q12W dosing without an interval reduction below Q12W through week 96; of the patients on Q16W at week 52, 70% and 82% of patients maintained Q16W dosing without an interval reduction through week 96 in YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively. At week 96, 78% of patients in the Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing arm achieved a Q16W or Q12W dosing interval in both studies (60% and 64% on Q16W, 18% and 14% on Q12W). 4% and 6% of patients were extended to Q8W and stayed on ≤ Q8W dosing intervals through week 96; 3% and 5% received only Q4W dosing in YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively. The proportion of patients in YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively, who received >15 injections in the PTI arms through week 96 was 13% and 18%.
Detailed results from the analyses of YOSEMITE and RHINE studies are listed in Table 4, Table 5 and Figures 2 and 3 below.
Table 4: Efficacy outcomes at the year 1 primary endpoint visitsa and at year 2b in YOSEMITE and RHINE
| Efficacy Outcomes | YOSEMITE | RHINE |
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 1 | Year 2 |
| Vabysmo Q8W N = 315 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing N = 313 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 312 | Vabysmo Q8W N = 315 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing N = 313 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 312 | Vabysmo Q8W N = 317 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing N = 319 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 315 | Vabysmo Q8W N = 317 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing N = 319 | Aflibercept Q8W N = 315 |
| Median number of injections received* (Q1, Q3) | 10 (10,10) | 8 (7, 9) | 10 (9, 10) | 5 (5, 5) | 3 (2, 4) | 5 (4, 5) | 10 (9, 10) | 8 (7, 10) | 10 (9, 10) | 5 (5, 5) | 3 (2, 4) | 5 (4, 5) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline (97.5% CI year 1 and 95% year 2) | 10.7 (9.4, 12.0) | 11.6 (10.3, 12.9) | 10.9 (9.6, 12.2) | 10.7 (9.4, 12.1) | 10.7 (9.4, 12.1) | 11.4 (10.0, 12.7) | 11.8 (10.6, 13.0) | 10.8 (9.6, 11.9) | 10.3 (9.1, 11.4) | 10.9 (9.5, 12.3) | 10.1 (8.7, 11.5) | 9.4 (7.9, 10.8) |
| Difference in LS mean (97.5% CI year 1, 95% CI year 2) | -0.2 (-2.0, 1.6) | 0.7 (-1.1, 2.5) | | -0.7 (-2.6, 1.2) | -0.7 (-2.5, 1.2) | | 1.5 (-0.1, 3.2) | 0.5 (-1.1, 2.1) | | 1.5 (-0.5, 3.6) | 0.7 (-1.3, 2.7) | |
| Proportion of patients who gained at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI year 1 and year 2) | 29.2% (23.9%, 34.5%) | 35.5% (30.1%, 40.9%) | 31.8% (26.6%, 37.0%) | 37.2% (31.4%, 42.9%) | 38.2% (32.8%, 43.7%) | 37.4% (31.7%, 43.0%) | 33.8% (28.4%, 39.2%) | 28.5% (23.6%, 33.3%) | 30.3% (25.0%, 35.5%) | 39.8% (34.0%, 45.6%) | 31.1% (26.1%, 36.1%) | 39.0% (33.2%, 44.8%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI year 1 and year 2) | -2.6% (-10.0%, 4.9%) | 3.5% (-4.0%, 11.1%) | | -0.2% (-8.2%, 7.8%) | 0.2% (-7.6%, 8.1%) | | 3.5% (-4.0%, 11.1%) | -2.0% (-9.1%, 5.2%) | | 0.8% (-7.4%, 9.0%) | -8% (-15.7%, -0.3%) | |
| Proportion of patients who avoided loss of at least 15 letters in BCVA from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI year 1 and year 2) | 98.1% (96.5%, 99.7%) | 98.6% (97.2%, 100.0%) | 98.9% (97.6%, 100.0%) | 97.6% (95.7%, 99.5%) | 97.8% (96.1%, 99.5%) | 98.0% (96.2%, 99.7%) | 98.9% (97.6%, 100.0%) | 98.7% (97.4%, 100.0%) | 98.6% (97.2%, 99.9%) | 96.6% (94.4%, 98.8%) | 96.8% (94.8%, 98.9%) | 97.6% (95.7%, 99.5%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI year 1 and year 2) | -0.8% (-2.8%, 1.3%) | -0.3% (-2.2%, 1.5%) | | -0.4% (-2.9%, 2.2%) | -0.2% (-2.6%, 2.2%) | | 0.3% (-1.6%, 2.1%) | 0.0% (-1.8%, 1.9%) | | -1.0% (-3.9%, 1.9%) | -0.7% (-3.5%, 2.0%) | |
aAverage of weeks 48, 52, 56, bAverage of weeks 92, 96, 100
* Median number of injections received for Year 1 corresponds to the period of baseline through Year 1, and for Year 2 corresponds to the period from Year 1 to Year 2
Q1: 1st quartile
Q3: 3rd quartile
BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
LS: Least Square
CI: Confidence Interval
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Note: CMH weighted % for aflibercept arm presented for Vabysmo Q8W vs. aflibercept comparison, however the corresponding CMH weighted % for Vabysmo adjustable vs. aflibercept comparison is similar to the one shown above
Figure 2: Mean change in visual acuity from baseline to year 2 (week 100) in YOSEMITE

Figure 3: Mean change in visual acuity from baseline to year 2 (week 100) in RHINE

Efficacy results in patients who were anti-VEGF treatment naive prior to study participation and in all the other evaluable subgroups (e.g. by age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, baseline visual acuity) in each study were consistent with the results in the overall populations.
An additional key efficacy outcome in DMO studies was the change in the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ETDRS-DRSS) from baseline to week 52. Of the 1,891 patients enrolled in Studies YOSEMITE and RHINE, 708 and 720 patients were evaluable for DR endpoints, respectively.
The ETDRS-DRSS scores ranged from 10 to 71 at baseline.
The majority of patients, approximately 60%, had moderate to severe non-proliferative DR (DRSS 43/47/53) at baseline.
At week 52, the proportion of patients improving by ≥ 2 steps on the ETDRS-DRSS was 43% to 46% across the Vabysmo Q8W and Vabysmo adjustable up to Q16W arms in both studies, compared to 36% and 47% in aflibercept Q8W arms of YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively. The results at week 96 were 43% to 54% across the Vabysmo Q8W and Vabysmo adjustable up to Q16W arms in both studies, compared to 42% and 44% in aflibercept Q8W arms of YOSEMITE and RHINE, respectively. Comparable results across the treatment arms were observed in both studies in the proportions of patients improving by ≥ 3 steps on the ETDRS-DRSS from baseline at week 52, and these results were maintained at week 96.
The results from the ≥ 2-step and ≥ 3-step ETDRS-DRSS improvement analyses from baseline at week 52 and at week 96 are shown in Table 4 below. Clinically meaningful proportions of patients achieved ≥2-step DRSS improvement from baseline at Week 52 in all three treatment arms (Vabysmo Q8W, Vabysmo PTI and aflibercept Q8W), and these outcomes were maintained at Week 96.
Table 5: Proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 2-step and ≥ 3-step improvement from baseline in ETDRS-DRSS score at week 52 and at week 96 in YOSEMITE and RHINE (DR evaluable population)
| | YOSEMITE | RHINE |
| 52 Weeks | 96 Weeks | 52 Weeks | 96 Weeks |
| Vabysmo Q8W n = 237 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing n = 242 | Aflibercept Q8W n = 229 | Vabysmo Q8W n = 220 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing n = 234 | Aflibercept Q8W n = 221 | Vabysmo Q8W n = 231 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing n = 251 | Aflibercept Q8W n = 238 | Vabysmo Q8W n = 214 | Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing n = 228 | Aflibercept Q8W n = 203 |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 2-step ETDRS-DRSS improvement from baseline (CMH weighted proportion) | 46.0% | 42.5% | 35.8% | 51.4% | 42.8% | 42.2% | 44.2% | 43.7% | 46.8% | 53.5% | 44.3% | 43.8% |
| Weighted Difference (97.5% CI year 1, 95% year 2) | 10.2% (0.3%, 20.0%) | 6.1% (-3.6%, 15.8%) | | 9.1% (0.0%, 18.2%) | 0.0% (-8.9%, 8.9%) | | -2.6% (-12.6%, 7.4%) | -3.5% (-13.4%, 6.3%) | | 9.7% (0.4%, 19.1%) | 0.3% (-8.9%, 9.5%) | |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 3-step ETDRS-DRSS improvement from baseline (CMH weighted proportion) | 16.8% | 15.5% | 14.7% | 22.4% | 14.6% | 20.9% | 16.7% | 18.9% | 19.4% | 25.1% | 19.3% | 21.8% |
| Weighted Difference (95% CI year 1 and year 2) | 2.1% (-4.3%, 8.6%) | 0.6% (-5.8%, 6.9%) | | 1.5% (-6.0%, 9.0%) | -6.7% (-13.6%, 0.1%) | | -0.2% (-5.8%, 5.3%) | -1.1% (-8.0%, 5.9%) | | 3.3% (-4.6%, 11.3%) | -2.7% (-10.2%, 4.8%) | |
ETDRS-DRSS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale
CI: Confidence Interval
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Note: CMH weighted % for aflibercept arm presented for Vabysmo Q8W vs. aflibercept comparison, however the corresponding CMH weighted % for Vabysmo adjustable vs. aflibercept comparison is similar to the one shown above.
Across studies, Vabysmo Q8W and up to Q16W adjustable dosing showed improvements in the pre-specified efficacy endpoint of mean change from baseline to week 52 in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score that were comparable to aflibercept Q8W and exceeded the threshold of 4 points. Vabysmo Q8W and up to Q16W adjustable dosing also demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in the pre-specified efficacy endpoint of change from baseline to week 52 in the NEI VFQ-25 near activities, distance activities, and driving scores, that were comparable to aflibercept Q8W. The magnitude of these changes corresponds to a 15-letter gain in BCVA. Comparable proportions of patients treated with Vabysmo Q8W, Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing, and aflibercept Q8W experienced a clinically meaningful improvement of ≥ 4-points from baseline to week 52 in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score, a pre-specified efficacy endpoint. These results were maintained at week 100.
DR treatment effects in the subgroup of patients who were anti-VEGF naive prior to study participation were comparable to those observed in the overall DR evaluable population. Treatment effects in evaluable subgroups (e.g. by age, gender, race, baseline HbA1c, and baseline visual acuity) in each study were generally consistent with the results in the overall population.
1474 patients who had previously completed either YOSEMITE or RHINE were included in RHONE- X, a 2-year, multi-centre, long-term extension study designed to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of intravitreal faricimab 6 mg, administered at a personalised treatment interval.
The long-term safety profile of faricimab observed in RHONE-X was consistent with the YOSEMITE and RHINE studies.
RVO
The safety and efficacy of Vabysmo were assessed in two randomised, multi-centre, double-masked, 72-week long studies in patients with macular oedema secondary to BRVO (BALATON) or CRVO/HRVO (COMINO). Active comparator-controlled data are available through month 6.
A total of 1,282 patients (553 in BALATON and 729 in COMINO) were enrolled in the two studies, with 1,276 patients treated with at least one dose through week 24 (641 with Vabysmo). Patient ages ranged from 28 to 93 with a mean [SD] of 64 [10.7] years, and 22 to 100 with a mean [SD] of 65 [13.2] years in BALATON and COMINO, respectively.
In both studies, patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to one of two treatment arms until week 24
• Vabysmo 6 mg Q4W for 6 consecutive monthly doses
• Aflibercept 2 mg Q4W for 6 consecutive monthly doses
After 6 initial monthly doses, patients initially randomized to the aflibercept 2 mg arm moved to 6 mg Vabysmo Vabysmo, and could have received Vabysmo6 mg Vabysmo according to an up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimen, where the dosing interval could be increased in 4-week increments or decreased by 4-, 8- or 12-weeks based on an automated objective assessment of pre-specified visual and anatomic disease activity criteria.
Results
Both studies showed efficacy in the primary endpoint, defined as the change from baseline in BCVA at week 24, measured by the ETDRS Letter Score. In both studies, Vabysmo Q4W treated patients had a non-inferior mean change from baseline in BCVA, compared to patients treated with aflibercept Q4W, and these vision gains were maintained through week 72 when patients moved to a Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimen.
Between week 24 and week 68, 81.5% and 74.0% of the patients receiving Vabysmo 6 mg up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimen achieved a ≥ Q12W (Q16W or Q12W) dosing interval in BALATON and COMINO, respectively. Of these patients, 72.1% and 61.6% completed at least one cycle of Q12W and maintained ≥ Q12W dosing without an interval reduction below Q12W through week 68 in BALATON and COMINO, respectively; 1.2% and 2.5% of the patients received only Q4W dosing through week 68 in BALATON and COMINO, respectively.
Across studies, at week 24 patients in the Vabysmo Q4W arm showed improvement in the pre-specified efficacy endpoint of change from baseline to week 24 in the NEI VFQ-25 composite score that was comparable to aflibercept Q4W. Vabysmo Q4W also demonstrated improvement in the pre-specified efficacy endpoint of change from baseline to week 24 in the NEI VFQ-25 near activities and distance activities, that were comparable to aflibercept Q4W. These results were maintained through week 72 when all patients were on Vabysmo up to Q16W adjustable dosing regimenincidence of ocular adverse events in the study eye was 20.1% and 24.6%, and non-ocular adverse events was 32.9% and 36.4%, through week 24 in the Vabysmo Q4W and aflibercept Q4W arms, respectively (see section 4.8).
Table 6: Efficacy outcomes at the week 24 primary endpoint visit and at the end of the study in BALATON
| Efficacy Outcomes | BALATON |
| 24 weeks | 72 weeksa |
| Vabysmo Q4W N = 276 | Aflibercept Q4W N = 277 | Vabysmo Q4W to Vabysmo Adjustable N = 276 | Aflibercept Q4W to Vabysmo Adjustable N = 277 |
| Median number of injections received (Q1, Q3)* | 6.0 (6.0-6.0) | 6.0 (6.0-6.0) | 4.0 (3.0-5.0) | 4.0 (3.0-5.0) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline (95% CI) | 16.9 (15.7, 18.1) | 17.5 (16.3, 18.6) | 18.1 (16.9, 19.4) | 18.8 (17.5, 20.0) |
| Difference in LS mean (95% CI) | -0.6 (-2.2, 1.1) | | | |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 15 letter gain from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 56.1% (50.4%, 61.9%) | 60.4% (54.7%, 66.0%) | 61.5% (56.0%, 67.0%) | 65.8% (60.3%, 71.2%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | -4.3% (-12.3%, 3.8%) | | | |
aAverage of weeks 64, 68, 72
* Median number of injections received for Week 24 corresponds to the period from baseline through Week 24, and for Week 72 corresponds to the period between Week 24 until the end of study
Q1: 1st quartile; Q3: 3rd quartile
BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
CI: Confidence Interval
LS: Least Square
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Table 7: Efficacy outcomes at the week 24 primary endpoint visit and at the end of the studya in COMINO
| Efficacy Outcomes | COMINO |
| 24 Weeks | 72 Weeksa |
| Vabysmo Q4W N = 366 | Aflibercept Q4W N = 363 | Vabysmo Q4W to Vabysmo Adjustable N = 366 | Aflibercept Q4W to Vabysmo Adjustable N = 363 |
| Median number of injections received (Q1, Q3)* | 6.0 (6.0-6.0) | 6.0 (6.0-6.0) | 5.0 (3.0-8.0) | 4.0 (3.0-7.0) |
| Mean change in BCVA as measured by ETDRS letter score from baseline (95% CI) | 16.9 (15.4, 18.3) | 17.3 (15.9, 18.8) | 16.9 (15.2, 18.6) | 17.1 (15.4, 18.8) |
| Difference in LS mean (95% CI) | -0.4 (-2.5, 1.6) | | | |
| Proportion of patients with ≥ 15 letter gain from baseline (CMH weighted proportion, 95% CI) | 56.6% (51.7%, 61.5%) | 58.1% (53.3%, 62.9%) | 57.6% (52.8%, 62.5%) | 59.5 (54.7%, 64.3%) |
| Difference in CMH weighted % (95% CI) | -1.5% (-8.4%, 5.3%) | | | |
aAverage of weeks 64, 68, 72
* Median number of injections received for Week 24 corresponds to the period from baseline through Week 24, and for Week 72 corresponds to the period between Week 24 until the end of study
Q1: 1st quartile; Q3: 3rd quartile
BCVA: Best Corrected Visual Acuity
ETDRS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study
CI: Confidence Interval
LS: Least Square
CMH: Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel method; a statistical test that generates an estimate of an association with a binary outcome and is used for assessment of categorical variables.
Figure 4: Mean change in visual acuity from baseline to week 72 in BALATON

Vabysmo 6 mg up to Q16W adjustable dosing started at week 24 but not all patients received Vabysmo at week 24.
Figure 5: Mean change in visual acuity from baseline to week 72 in COMINO

Vabysmo 6 mg up to Q16W adjustable dosing started at week 24 but not all patients received Vabysmo at week 24.
Paediatric population
The European Medicines Agency has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with Vabysmo in all subsets of the paediatric population in nAMD, DMO and RVO (see section 4.2 for information on paediatric use).